Vibroverse

I think it's possible to create a different history where you were born from a different family in a different world. I think you actually are creating your "real" history and individual self in the now anyways. Think of the world as vapor that you densify in your awareness. Then you can relax, get into a sleep like state, and start dreaming a new form of your awareness. First you need to understand that reality, and your timeline, and all that you know to be you, is awareness.

A cat that I imagine and a cat that I see are both imaginary, and one is not more real than the other. This world that I see is not more real than any other possible world that I can imagine. All worlds are my consciousness. All things are my consciousness. I can delete whatever, and whoever, I want to delete, and I can create whatever, and whoever, I want to create. And I already am doing that deleting and creating thing in every moment.

Dude, I wanna say, with all my love, that you have no fuckin idea about what you're saying.

I think every historical text must be interpreted in its own context of temporal and spatial evolution. Every text and person is a byproduct of its cultural and evolutionary environment.

What I say now may be a little controversial, but I'm thinking of spirituality also as a science that is evolving, like, say, medicine. You don't want the medicine of the last millenium to treat you today, but it was an evolved technology in its time back then. The view of love is evolving.

Yes, I'm aware of that. What I mean is consciousness is evolving, and the Quran was a part of that process of evolution.

I think in dialectical terms about this, that the Quran had to be written as a part of the evolution of the Spirit. Of course the Quran has all those biases and things that we deem to be negative today, if you have evolved. And the negativity in the Quran, by its nature, carries the opposite idea in itself also, and evolution is about the process of coming to a positive balance of those ideas.

I agree. A new synthesis of reason and intuition, of logic and love. A new modality of being.

And the weird thing that I'm thinking about is this: It is obvious, to me, that reality is a mirror, reflecting what's going on inside of me, but the question is, what is that which is inside of me is a mirror to, is a representation of, if you know what I mean? And I feel like it is turtles all the way down, like, it is representations and mirrors all the way down where, at the bottom of it, they don't refer to anything, and I feel like it is because Source has created reality out of nothing, because "something" is nothing. So, to me it feels like reality, in a sense, is like a web of mirrors that has no center to it, or, you may say, every point is the center to it. But again, I think that's the point where we need to understand that intuition is the ground of logic, the ground of modeling, and it's best to think in alignment with the intuivite faculty of yours.

Yes, nothing happens by chance. As you said, if you increase your awareness, you will realize that even the timing of the dogs starting to bark in the street is a reflection of your state of consciousness, your, shall we say, frequency. Everything is happening by law of attraction, and some people may, for some reason, not like the concept of the law of attraction, and that's fine, but what that concept, in its essence, is referring to is a fact of existence.

Law of attraction is real, but I don't truly understand how and why it actually works, and I don't know if it is understandable at all, or a mystery in itself. But the law of attraction is, yes, real, in a sense, your thoughts, somehow, influence your reality. However, as Abraham Hicks explains, I believe in the concept of the Inner Being and the Vortex, the Stream, and that we are, like, something like vibrational frequencies of consciousness. And the Inner Being already is, or has become, the reality, the path, that we prefer. And therefore it, again, comes to the importance of your state of being. It is, in my opinion, of paramount importance that you release your resistance, so that you can become, more and more, receptive to the Inner Being. And, for me, from where I am, the best way of accomplishing that alignment, more and more, with the Inner Being is through the quietness of the mind, so that you can be more receptive to the, you may say, Cosmic Mind, the Mind of the Inner Being, in, like, a way that is "relevant" for you in your experience, in your world.

Yes, but in order for you to be closer to your true nature, you still have to be there to be closer to your true nature. Existence, in that sense, cannot become that which does not exist. I mean "being" itself cannot not exist. But, the trouble we are experiencing about that might be this, that we still are trying to look for the limits, the limitlessness, of being through thought and language. We are creating a model of limitlessness in our minds and claim that it is what limitlessness really is. But, to me, it feels like the true limitlessness, the true nature of being, cannot be found in our depictions and models of what we think to be that which is limitlessness. We think that the models that we create in our mind about limitlessness can themselves be limitless. And, I think, the true limitlessness, maybe, or obviously, is not about the models of it that we imagine it to be, but it, in a sense, is the imagining itself that is what it is, really.

It is impossible for God, for Consciousness, to not exist, for instance, if we don't try to say it is possible by just creating word games.

I think laws of logic are much deeper in its foundation than laws of physics. It is imaginable to bend laws of physics, but it is not even imaginable to bend laws of logic.

Imagine a person who lives the most fucked up life ever, I mean, the most fucked up life in all the probable worlds where it just cannot get any worse than that. That person has the greatest fears and regrets and confusions ever, etc, and everything is against him, that even the pain, etc, of Christ is nothing compared to that. Think of it as that which as bad as it gets ever.

There you don't know what to do, you don't know what to think, you are, like, trapped within a trap within a trap, eternally, ad infinitum.

That there is nothing good, none at all, in the past, in the world, in the now, etc, of that person, of that being, and it is like the epitome of pure fuckedupness and negativity.

And think of it as everything you can ever think of as negative, times infinity. Imagine that the world of that person has nothing that is not against him, that it is a world of pure evil. Pure evil that no light, at all, exists in it, in that sense.

A universe where there are circular squares and God can create a rock that it cannot lift and things like this exist. https://www.google.com/search?q=escher+gif&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=isvn&sxsrf=ALiCzsYzDJ3wwq3nF76EHk1dn7mJoD9tAw:1662616624536&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRibbKwYT6AhVhVfEDHYV9C7YQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=360&bih=574&dpr=3#imgrc=rW01HMzlT1cawM

I think it's possible to shift to a parallel timeline where you were born from a different family, and in a different country, etc. I think you can even turn yourself into a cat and erase your memories about ever being a human. I think anything but breaking the logical barriers, like trying to create a square circle, is possible. But is it probable for you to experience those realities, is another question. I think existence is consciousness, and consciousness can become infinite dreams within dreams withing dreams. I think it is like a hologram, or like a vibrational reality etc, in that sense. But existence, to me, seems like following a certain pattern, and it has an intelligence of its own, and it, in a sense, asks us to be in the state of peace and ease etc, to take us to the reality that we need.

Let's say I'm talking to you, and you're teaching me a skill or a knowledge that you have. Then, since all is one and time is an illusion, then I actually already know that can ever be known in existence. The knowledges and skills that has ever existed and will ever exist, I can become those knowledges and skills. Reality is one consciousness, and you already are all that was, and is, and will ever be, in the now, and you already ever every person and being in existence, therefore you already know everything and have every skill that can ever exist, for you are the nothing that is everything. You can wake up tomorrow as a fisherman in China and know everything that that you knows and be everything that that you is. This is a, kinda, freaky shit, really. Do you agree with what I'm saying here? And you may say that you agree with what I'm saying on the absolute level of being, but not on the relative level of being where we experience the idea of time and process etc. And yeah, with that I would agree. It is still crazy shit though, but I think, maybe, if the experience of aligning with the Source is accomplished in the moment, where we just relax and simply, effortlessly, go with the Stream of Being, then the process can just happen effortlessly and also, maybe, nicely.

Yeah, I think Mohammad's intention, maybe, was good, but he was a human after all, if he existed, and he was a part of a culture with his own biases and beliefs about the world.

I think only one consciousness exists, but that one consciousness is being filtered through, and as, "individual" beings, if it makes sense to you.

The Quran is a book that was written in an era that is far away from our time, and it speaks to those people and their questions, and it is filtered, even if it is God that is talking there, by the mind of Mohammad, if he really even existed, and the belief systems and culture etc of the era. Many things in the Quran doesn't make sense to me, and it feels biased and angry and like bigotry, but, I think, it doesn't even make so much sense to argue about it, because ethics, even if there are some universals in it, in my humble opinion, is a culturally filtered perception. And I don't believe in Heaven and Hell, in the way the Quran talks about it. I think Mohammad, perhaps, was trying to protect people from, what he perceived to be evil, and some of those ideas I agree with, and some of those I don't, and he told them that they will be rewarded if they do good. It is a very common feature in the human thought, to try to motivate people through the ideas of punishment and reward, and he might have even had good intentions, I don't know. But the idea of an eternal hell if you don't pray five times in a day, for instance, or if you have premarital sex, etc, doesn't make sense to me. I think all the religions are talking to the dynamics of the culture, and point in time in history, etc, that they are born in. There are, I think, some universals in religions, for they are the universals, I think, of existence anyways, but most of them, probably, aren't relevant for me. Maybe it, somehow, was helpful for some people in the time, but ethics and understanding are evolutionary and cultural things, and if you try to make them relevant for all times and places, it just becomes a never ending bullshiting really, for, then it becomes the "evil" itself that it, probably, was once trying to fight against, if you know what I mean. My thought is I don't need any spokesperson for God really, because I've realized that I myself am an extension of God, and therefore I can listen to God, directly, myself, and in a way that makes sense to me in the life that I myself am living.

If you are the same age, say, with Einstein, where is he now? I'm able to talk to you, the physical human, but I'm not able to talk to Einstein, even if I, somehow, perhaps, can talk to you. And I think, yes, perhaps, that we are all nonexistent, that we are all, in a sense, you the awareness, or something like that, but here we are. Something about your perception of reality is attractive to me, but that something is what makes you you, instead of making you me. So, in a sense, in a literal sense of the idea of Buddhism, perhaps, we can talk of being as "nothing experiencing nothing", but that nothing is something that we are referring to as you. And what you said really is weird, not in a negative way necessarily, I guess, that you then are existence and time itself, and you are these words and the awareness of these words, and the experience of the "melting" in a sense of that duality, and becoming being. But if you are the laws of existence and mind and knowledge, for you are the now, then it is you that is the structure, and you become time, in a sense, then, by knowing yourself and being aware, in a sense, of yourself, and, paradoxically, it creates a distinction between you and me, for being needs duality to be able to be being. But the problem then is how do you explain your own existence, and then you may, perhaps, say that you can do that by making yourself an object to yourself that you know, but that knowing itself, then, is. So my question is about the nature of a question. Is a question really a question, or is a question an answer within itself? Is a question an answer within itself that makes itself "mystified" to itself? I guess it is the biggest question for me that makes me think of the world as a question experiencing itself as that which is a question, by "being" the notion, the idea, of a question first, and, by "definition", it is that which defines you. And it, then, gives me a weird perception of reality where reality seems to become your awareness of reality, and the possibility of your reality being something that is abstract, and it, somehow, becomes the idea. But that is a really weird thing for, then, you become you by becoming me, and I become me by becoming you. That's weird because it knows the experience of space and time, but it also knows itself as the form of being here and now. The question here is, then, what the heck is space and time, and how is it that form is a part of it? How does, as you might say, perhaps, that which is absolute is that which is relative? How is that which is absolute is being "being" by being that which is relative? How is it that you are, in a sense, you by simply being you who, or that, is the experience of knowing? Then we, in a sense, come to the level of perception and being, but it then also becomes circular for it is it that refers to it by "claiming", in a sense, to be something but it. And the "trick", in a sense, of being something but it becomes that which builds itself as the experience of being towards future, and being from past. Now you may say that it is a mystery within itself, for it is itself, but then how will you "explain" the structural modality of being? How is it, then, that you are you and not someone else? How is it, then, that all is in consciousness, and that all is consciousness, but all, at the same time, is the reference of consciousness? How is it, then, that structures exist? For example, let's say you are reading a book that Einstein wrote, and not become a part of that mode of being? I mean, you can say that it is that, but it also is not that for we are able to talk about it, in a sense in the "mode", or "modality", of it. And you may, perhaps, say that "well, dude, yeah, deal with it, for being is being", and it is an interesting perspective, I gotta say. However, then we, in my terms, perhaps, have to say that reality is intuition and intuition is the structure of reality. It, I gotta say, is a very frickin weird perspective for it is the "end", in a sense, of perspective by being a perspective. It is, perhaps, like a snake eating its own tail by becoming its own tail that is itself. That, if it, in a sense, might be able to refer to the idea of referring to the idea that is, in a sense, some intelligence. And that "intelligence" is so freaky for that intelligence is the being of being that is an experience of being. So even it there is a structure and form of the idea of notion there, then it becomes an "evolutionary" system in a sense that "evolves" towards itself, and "evolves" as itself, and becomes an idea that is impossible for it is the "point" of impossible. And that "model" of reality, in a sense, is, in a sense, "self discovering", but that self discovery, by its nature, is the "experience" of itself, knowing, or being, itself, and it becomes, in a sense, the notion, or the idea, that represents itself to itself, but that "itselfness" is the, in a sense, "evolutionary loop" of being "appearing" as becoming. You may, perhaps, at that point, say that "becoming" actually is not more mystical than "being", for, you may say, in a kinda weird way, becoming is but a series of being, but the "substance", in a sense, of becoming is one with being. But, then, what is our ability of making sense of something? We say that when you let go of a pen, for instance, it falls, and there is a pattern there that we experience. So, even if reality is mystical, reality also is causal, and that, as we may very well explain, also is rational. Reality that is mystical and, in a sense, free, also is a pattern, a structure, and reality is reality. So, what's really interesting to me is the structure, in that sense, of reality, that reality, in a sense, is organized by a frickin weird "thing", and it also, I guess, is that frickin weird "thing", but it discovers itself. But that process of "expansion" has a certain modality, even if, at the "ground of being" level it comes to itself from itself. Some of it being itself is hidden, and that's the "discovery". But that modality of being is its own being that it becomes, and its model, then, in a sense, is a no model model being the model that it is.